The issue of the Democratic Party trying to co-opt the growing “Occupy” movement has become a topic of establishment media conversation. It is being discussed through the lens of whether this movement will do for Democrats what the Tea Party did for Republicans in 2010. It is also being discussed in terms of how to use the broad-based anger and energy to advance Democratic policy proposals in Congress.

The media is watching closely to see how this impacts the political landscape. For example, on “Hardball” on October 11, Chris Matthews focused attention on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s email calling for 100,000 people to stand strong with Occupy Wall Street.

It’s delightful to see someone in the media go after Politico for their stenography. J-Mart looked like the cat who ate the canary having to dodge the question about how Dick Cheney was using Politico as his conduit. And there’s simply no excuse for it. Cheney uses Politico because he knows they won’t challenge him in any meaningful way or even ask him a follow-up question, preferring to just be a printing press for the “Cheney Times” pamphlet. Maybe there’s a content-sharing agreement; we didn’t learn that on this go-round.

But I think of all the people to hit Politico for this, the last person qualified to do so is Chris Matthews.

Chris Matthews, surely you don’t mean me? Of course, I do blog, and yes, I do get most of my news and information from blogs. Mostly because of pundits like you – who may or may not eat cheetos, but who surrendered their journalistic integrity a long, long time ago.

But Chris, if you’re laughing at me, the joke’s on you.

Today on Hardball, Jim Cooper was on to discuss the Stupak amendment and how the House and Senate can work through it to reach a compromise. He had a long conversation with Chris Matthews about how conservative Democrats needed this vote to sign on to the bill. He said that people were confused about how to best maintain the Hyde Amendment status quo, among other things. He said that the bill is likely to be changed, and that the Senate could choose to move it away from the Stupak amendment in the end. He chastised the Rules Committee for distributing language that the Stupak Amendment codified the Hyde Amendment when that was the language from Stupak himself, and he said that the amendment would in fact, for the first time, restrict indirect taxpayer subsidies of reproductive choice services, rather than direct ones. He said that employers get a deduction of health care expenses on corporate taxes, and yet the Hyde Amendment doesn’t cover that employer-based health care even though there are indirect subsidies for it.

He talked like a college professor, weighing the pros and cons from afar, without mentioning that he voted for the Stupak Amendment.